Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The mischief rule [1] is one of three rules of statutory interpretation traditionally applied by English courts, [2] the other two being the "plain meaning rule" (also known as the "literal rule") and the "golden rule". It is used to determine the exact scope of the "mischief" that the statute in question has set out to remedy, and to guide the ...
Heydon's Case (1584) 76 ER 637 is considered a landmark case: it was the first case to use what would come to be called the mischief rule of statutory interpretation.The mischief rule is more flexible than the golden or literal rule, in that the mischief rule requires judges to look over four tasks to ensure that gaps within the law are covered.
Heydon's Case 76 ER 637 (1584) (Exchequer of Pleas): The first case to use what would come to be called the mischief rule for statutory interpretation. Darcy v Allein [1603] 77 Eng. Rep. 1260 (King's Bench): (most widely known as The Case of Monopolies): establishing that it was improper for any individual to be allowed to have a monopoly over ...
It is often mentioned that common law statutes can be interpreted by using the Golden Rule, the Mischief Rule or the Literal Rule. However, according to Francis Bennion , author of texts on statutory interpretation, [ 8 ] there are no such simple devices to elucidate complex statutes, "[i]nstead there are a thousand and one interpretative ...
Purposive interpretation is a derivation of mischief rule set in Heydon's Case, [5] and intended to replace the mischief rule, the plain meaning rule and the golden rule. [6] Purposive interpretation is used when the courts use extraneous materials from the pre-enactment phase of legislation, including early drafts, hansards , committee reports ...
Rylands v Fletcher (1868) LR 3 HL 330 is a leading decision by the House of Lords which established a new area of English tort law.It established the rule that one's non-natural use of their land, which leads to another's land being damaged as a result of dangerous things emanating from the land, is strictly liable.
Get AOL Mail for FREE! Manage your email like never before with travel, photo & document views. Personalize your inbox with themes & tabs. You've Got Mail!
The rule is today seen as an expression of legislative supremacy. [11] It is infrequently cited in contemporary [clarification needed] opinions. [12] During oral arguments for the 2016 case, Lockhart v. United States, [13] Justice Antonin Scalia sua sponte raised the question of the rule's application: "...what I worry about is the rule of lenity.